The Pending Subsidy Cliff, And the Way Out

New Hampshire, U.S.A. --
It's a daunting reality, yet one that's been years in the making. And it's a scenario that's shaping up from the wind-swept coasts of California to the solar rooftops of New Jersey. The renewables industries — all of them — are not only approaching a subsidy cliff. They already have one foot dangling over the edge.

These cliffs are seen as a part of the renewables landscape, and the hope has been that the perceived drop would be too steep for lawmakers to ignore. In the past, that’s been a successful strategy, but the new state of politics dictates that subsidies will be phased out. Though some may yet be extended for at least the short-term, we’re likely entering a new era of energy policy in the United States.

The report is especially well-timed as the renewables industries head into a period of uncertainty magnified many times by the posturing that comes with presidential elections. The numbers, though, are real and they mostly point one way.

In 2009, backed by ample stimulus funding and solid political support, federal clean tech spending, including everything from energy to electric vehicles, reached $44.3 billion. That spending has dropped steadily to an estimated $16 billion this year. By 2014, the federal government will spend $11 billion, or about a quarter of what it did five years earlier, on clean technologies.

This is a problem, write the report authors, because this drop has not coincided with a comprehensive new energy approach — one that aims to lower costs of energy with clear requirements and predictable policy. And it has not included a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies that long ago matured past the point where they needed federal support. The other side of reform, the one that gets far fewer headlines, is in the amount of money invested in research and development, an area of the clean energy sector that has been woefully underserved in recent years.

The following is a breakdown of key points and suggestions made by the authors as they envision a blueprint for a new energy strategy.

Policy Reform

Current policy has enabled greater capacity, and that has in turn allowed processes to scale-up. But what do you have when the policies go away? Right now, you’d have technologies that except in rare cases cannot compete dollar for dollar against low-cost options like natural gas.

The problem, the authors say, is that the policy mechanisms haven’t demanded that the technologies bring their costs down to levels that compete with fossil fuels. This is kind of like the current flat production subsidies given to support certain crops. An example of this would be the Production Tax Credit that has fueled explosive growth in the American wind industry. The credit gives 2.2 cents per kWh generated, and that figure has only been readjusted to reflect inflation. A more demanding policy structure that forces a downward trajectory in pricing would better force companies to meet targets — or risk losing that policy support.

“We would favor some kind of extension of the PTC,” said Mark Muro, a policy analysts at the Brookings Institution. “At the same time, some predictable downramp would extend the wind industry’s competitiveness.”

Muro realizes this isn’t an easy time to be having this discussion. The wind industry in particular has a lot of political backing, but dwindling hopes that an extension can get done before the end of the year. The outlook may drive the industry from as much as 9,500 MW installed in 2012 to 500 MW in 2013.

“The wind industry is a sophisticated industry with lots of success and lots of people who understand the value of competing on price, and I think they’d be willing to look at these ideas. There’s a readiness to address some of these issues.”

According to the report, subsidies should be reconfigured to meet stringent, yet consistent new measures. The report makes several specific suggestions in which the authors say new policies should do the following:

Set policies that decline as technologies improve in price and performance. They should be terminated if certain types of technology fail to improve on price and performance, or if they achieve the goal of becoming competitive without support.

Open opportunities for technologies at all stages of development. Technologies with a similar level of maturity should be allowed to compete amongst themselves to determine which is best suited to move forward.

Ensure that the process is clear, transparent and predictable for many years down the road. The uncertain and short-term nature of current policy does as much to hinder investment as the cost considerations.

Strengthen Innovation

The policy piece that’s been largely missing from American clean energy strategy is research and development. This have been a fundamental element for the growth of military technology, the space program and medical sciences. But it’s been conspicuously absent as a major driving force for renewables.

The lack of research, development and deployment (RD&D) funding really starts in the private sector, where U.S. energy firms reinvest about 1 percent of their revenues. In the information technologies, semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries, these numbers usually run between 15 and 20 percent. The federal government isn’t doing much better in this respect. In 2012, federal RD&D spending will fall below $4 billion. That compares unfavorably with the levels of early funding received by NASA ($19 billion), health research ($33.5 billion) and defense ($80 billion). Even pushing energy related RD&D funding to $15 billion would have profound effects.

This may be an area with political common ground. Republicans who have been against the government “picking winners and losers” are usually quick to respond that federal investment should come in the research phase of new technologies.

Below are some of the recommendations for rethinking RD&D funding for clean energy techologies:

Funding in clean energy shouldn’t end once they reach subsidy independence. The emergence of shale gas shows how persistent research can lead to continued breakthroughs.

Spanning the “Valley of Death” for both technology and commercialization remains a critical obstacle. This is when funding usually dries up, yet on the other side is when significant breakthroughs can emerge.

The DOE loan program should be replaced by the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which would leverage private finance to support entrepreneurs with innovative technologies.

A National Clean Energy Testbed should be established on public lands to give pre-permitted, grid-connected space for emerging technologies to blossom without the hassles typically involved with demonstration projects.

Harness advanced manufacturing in the U.S. Innovation suffers when it is divorced from the manufacturing process. So, there’s a natural investment to realign these two industry forces.

Invest in education, from grade school through graduate school. And then work to employ the international students who come for an education but leave because of immigration barriers.

83 Comments

@sandcanyongal
My Wind turbines would be relatively small compared to size standard models have achieved, as bymy calculations biggest ned not be more han 4m in dianeter. Made out of recycled transparent plastic, sitting on poles of equally transparent recycled plastic strenghtened by Carbon Nanotubes and protected againest Ultra Violet rays influence, they would be invisible even from relatively close up.
Joined to my new Solars, they would have storage for surplus energy that cannot be used at once in Solar thermal storage with molten salt.
WindSolars would be able to work on or off Grid, 24/365 simply by using redundant Solar Concentrators to collect and store as much energy as required to last during cloudy weather on that particular location.
I am telling everyone, this is the solution everyone seek.
However, people ask me to prove it all first, and when I prove it they say it is not official, unless I get signature of few renowed scientists confirming this is so.
Scientists answer me to not bother them as they are too bussy seeking solution
I allready have and they dismiss as impossible.
That is why I am posting on all relevant forums, but those who seek solutions seems to not also to find them, except if it would be by them, that is.
Sheer NIH syndrom. (Not Invented Here).
Americans give out tons of money, but only to US citizens and US Scientists,
the rest of the World countries are threated like pariahs, and as example of Mr. Tesla witness, there are some out there who are briliant enough to invent
new and better things.
Just we are discriminated for not being US citizens and living in US.
Those producing earth oil and gas seem to think that it can be used just for burning, and this is actually crudest use as they are basis for chemical industry that can synthesize more valuable products so profit would be larger.

It always amuses me to read a long list of comments where each person hits on some truth,most make statements without much to back up their version of reality,and in all cases fall far short of having a real solution

The complaints about solar being anemic and lacking real power and capability,wind turbines not 'being an answer', more money spent on R&D will solve the problem etc,etc.

If you had a vehicle that got horrible mileage. Was costing you a fortune at the pump. Almost singlehandedly destroying the environment when considering the vast amount of fuel it uses.

Then one day you discover that there are huge holes in the fuel tank. That most of what you put in it just gets wasted on the ground.

Would you consider yourself a sane person if waxing on and on about how your lack of mileage and the severe costs were a function of not have enough of a proper type of fuel.

No you would probably check yourself in to the nearest asylum.

I see the same type of mental malady when one continues to ignore the massive 'holes' in our use of energy where the bulk of it is just frittered away foolishly.

With what our country squanders in one week in invading countries and killing freedom fighters we could make a huge dent in our massive energy waste. But of course that would require decisions being made by the sane.

That's not going to happen

Let's just keep bitching and complaining that 'the mythical they' are not solving our energy problems while ignoring the real issues.

henrik14. Tesla was brilliant! Inventors have a unique vision. I fumble through life, have some skills, compared to the minds of inventors who are intriguing and truly unique. Those individuals take nothing, develop a concept then act it out their visions. The wheel wouldn't exist without them and we might still be using our backs to move objects.

I, however, do not believe that "growing" gigantic wind turbines are the answer to aggressively impacting climate change. It is an economically based solution that will prove to be futile.

@sandcanyongal
Antiquated? Do You know Mr. Tesla has had invented IC motor with 95% efficiency way back in 1920es,but it was not taken for mass production because oil moguls wanted to sell as much gasoline as possible, so much
less effective OTO motor was chosen for mass production?
Today best cars with catalysers and whatnot reached 64% eficiency.....
Engineer Tesla has 1938 invented wholy electric car that was able to travel
90 miles per hour all day long, and with standard lead acid batery accumulator only.
So, why would not we use his legacy and have free transportation?
Antiquated, indeed!

henrik14. This is off-topic. I researched a family member last year, Walter J. Podbielniak, who was an inventor in Chicago. I worked with a young scientist who lives in Poland who was gathering detailed information to document his patents, accomplishments which were global and personal life. I went back as far as 1928 to Michigan State a found a single youthful photo and over time lots of data. He and his wife, in the 1930s - 60s automated the Salk vaccine, and used centrifugal methods to oak drinking alcohol, major contributors and patents in the oil industry and refrigeration. They had dozens of patents and led privileged lives.

There seem to be major pockets in time when patents abound, a patent "bubble." This is where our mindset should be focused is in creativity, and not looking backwards for answers that are antiquated.

ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012

Solar Power (if it can be called that) now represents .02% of the world's electricity generation. Insignificant.

ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012

TO Henrick14: Build one.

ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012

It is amazing that some have posted comments suggesting that "coal plants are closing" in the US. Some are, but we're building more. China and India are building a lot more - and they'll us our coal. Solar and wind are cute supplements, but it is shocking to see the repeated ignorance expressed by so many. Spending $100 billion on wind and solar hasn't made any difference. I guess it makes people feel good and the majority of Americans now (wrongly) believe it's a solution, but if you really care about the earth - you're only making it worse. We need something that reduces CO2, eliminates coal electricity generation and delivers affordable energy.

@sandcanyongal
Thank God, at least someone read what I wrote!
Yes, since I am Systems Engineer, I tried to make it perfect and cover as many aspects of problem by solutions.
My WindSolars are the answer everyone is looking for, and they even not need water that is scarce in desert places which are perfect for Solars othervise.
Since Greenhouses would be built in, even previously infertile land can be replaced by first class agricultural land by adding composted material or
just earth taken out while building houses.
My Solar Skyscrapers could also havbe several stories of agricultural land if
so designed, not only on topmost floor. Of course just like in Japan skyscraper basements, Solar light lamps have to replace Sun for plants to grow.
If You want some details contact me at oberon(at)globalnet.hr
Right now my most pressing problem is approaching the deadline for patenting,
and You can perhaps pay for Patent Lawyer and patenting of my turbines.
In return I can give Your frends License to recycle broken washing machines
into my kind of HAWTs, while paying to me as inventor just tantiemes for
each commisioned WPS, in size of 10% on total manufacturing cost.
Such turbines are able to create "Tornado Efect" and so collect wind from
at least 80 times greater diameter that their own 51cm.
Since they work even with 1m/sec wind that could be found in the cities also
and since they cannot fall apart as they harness Centrifugal force to do usefull work instead of damage, they are perfectly safe to use in the cities as well.
Regards from Croatia, the homeland of one of greatest inventors from 19th and 20th century, Engineer Nikola Tesla!

@henrik14 I'm going to check this out and ask my husband to do the same. From your discussion it meets the expectations for recycle, reuse, remake which takes post consumer/commerical materials using lower polluting manufacturing methods. This is the trend of the future once we get on board with the fact that we can't continue to mine and drill, use products once, then dispose of products and packaging into landfills. This is a bit off track but I recycled all paper and recyclable plastic for a year and still use all paper packaging like cereal boxes to use on the bottom of my macaw area/inside plastic packaging in place of buying baggies...outcome is a lot of price savings, seriously so. Harnessing the sun and wind and getting off the grid will save each of us many $thousands per year. My personal energy bills for 2 people are between $300 and $450/mo depending on the time of year. Living in somewhat rural Tehachapi where AG is being replaced with industrial turbines, it's left the people with superb AG skills sitting on their thumbs and quite frankly, many people are unable to afford electric and/or propane bills and don't even use heat in the winter. I have neighbors who have colds and coughing all the time. Sorry for getting down to this level but these are realities and observations. Additionally, I am so worried that our local food sources are continuing to go away for profit exclusively on behalf industrial wind and solar investors, when the land should be preserved to feed the people. We can't eat fiberglass blades, concrete, asphalt or polluted water. This is not only short sighted but dangerous because the planet is heating up quickly. This is settled science.

@sandcanyongal
My WindSolars are better, have NO "Land Footprint" because there are the Greenhouses built in, use same space foe Wind and Sun harvesting and can work anywhere, 24/365, on or off grid, because Sun is available nearly anywhere and so is slow wind, even in cities.
Cost of Electricity under 10€ per MW and even less later because of mass production. First users of such clean electricity would be exactly factories that would manufacture parts, that would make them 100% clean and Green, and at same time cheaper by far.
My WPSs can use slow wind effectively and such wind could be found everywhere. They have no wings and produce no sounds.
If produced from recycled transparent plastic (including the pole) they would be nearly invisible from even close by.
WindSolars could also be built in Skyscrapers, and such skyscrapers can have agricultural land on topmost floor. They would be harvesting the rain, cleaning own waters and producing biogas from waste.
I hope this would be up to your expectations of clean and green energy :-))

Sun2Energy, good question. They are not the first to look into this. Check out: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lightning_Power The problem boils down to storage. The difference with SEFE Inc. is solving the electrical challenges seem to be less important than extracting money from investors.

Sandcanyongal, not everyone lives in a setting where rooftop solar is feasible. Find a real injustice to fight.

I have installed over 850 solar pv systems and to tell you guys the truth everyone of our customers really love them congress need to pass the HB-1603 bill so that regular folk like you and i can get Solar that will be huge impact come off the Hill and let's get this done.I pray someday we will have another John Kennedy that would make some big changes.

In response to mark-randall-22769. Yes, coal plants are closing in the U.S. but like squeezing a balloon, as you squeeze in one place the balloon bulges in another, namely China. The earth rotates so you and I still get pollution. There are polluting coal-fired kilns at cement plants. I live near Lehigh outside the city limits of Tehachapi, the 2nd highest polluter in the U.S. Further, have you heard of coal seam fires? There are thousands of them. Some are natural but many others are caused by mining, and can burn for 100+ years.

Hi folks. I live in the Tehachapi Pass and fight the installation of any more turbines every single day of my life. Industrial wind or industrial solar are not green, not the manufacture, not the destruction, not the power they produce. They are the scam of the 21st century. There are dozens of opposition groups all over the world because they are garbage technology intended as solution to keep us all on the grid strictly for economic reasons and jobs. I'm convinced that if these technologies are put aside and honest research and development are conducted outside the grasp of politics and big money that our many genius level scientists will rise to the challenge.

What is happening now is like what sometimes happens in the software development area. There are companies that don't bother to follow the standard rules of application development that begins with a business need. They skip the critical steps like gathering the business requirements, cost/benefit, future growth, technical requirements, application design, walk thrus under strict guidelines and standards before programming. 100% failure occurs. This is exactly what has occurred with industrial wind and solar. Garbage in, garbage out. There's never time to do it right the first time, but there is always time to do it again.

Sorry but industrial wind and solar, running thousands of miles of transmission lines is not a sustainable solution and is ars-backwards. The goal is zero impact, zero pollution and lots of jobs. This horribly destructive, useless path needs to end and to get on track with rooftop solar at the source of use and off of any grid. Either we get serious about reversing the spiraling heating of the planet or it's pretty simple that all life on earth will end.

Not to hijack this discussion but has anyone looked at SEFE Inc technology? I am not physicist but the concept is interesting but will it work?

ANONYMOUS
April 26, 2012

THE EARTH IS ONE HUGE FOSSIL AND ALL CHEMICALS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL FORMS OF ENENRGY COME FROM THE EARTH THE HUGE FOSSIL AS CREATED BY GOD

ANONYMOUS
April 25, 2012

There are many factors to consider when discussing the relative merits of wind/solar vs. coal/NG in the US power market. First, except in a few limited locations, coal and NG power rates are far lower than wind or solar. Second, the coal/NG/oil industries contribute massive net tax/royalty revenues to state and federal governments, while RE currently does not. Third, there is a difference between growth in "installed capacity" and actual "power produced". Fourth, for raw commodities like oil and gas, there are lots of other demands for their use. Oil is used for transportation fuels like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. NG is used for plastics production and agricultural fertilizers.

A significant share of generation from biomass and solar photovoltaic resources occurs in the end-use industrial, residential, and commercial sectors and is not included in the utility-scale electric power data presented here.

The strong benefits of Solar Energy is Clear Clean Air viewed in major cities as improving air quality. Clean Cities. By all that use there brain for good . View it as protecting the environment and Freedom from OIL , Coal and other Dirty Energy.

While many Governments has eased the Taxes on Renewable Energy . Some cities in the states that these Legislators come from have worked against these tax credits.

By doing so they are showing their true objectives. That they have stock in some power plants and do not want to lose all that Money they have been taking out of your pocket books for too many years. By taxing you on your Energy Bills. They want
to Control Power and Tax Everything they can. Not let People be free to get their own power from the top of their own roofs.

By adding their own taxes to them. These wicked leaders think that this will take away the incentives to harvest the Free Energy from the Sun.

The Public ability and awareness for all on Earth to use the Natural Solar Energy, is Contributing to Production of Solar Energy Products. Making the Solar Energy Industry the fastest growing on Earth. A Wealth of Free Energy From The SUN.

The more the wicked try to slow the Solar Energy Industry and Renewable Energy down, it only Enhances involvement and the efforts of the Good at Heart.

through out History Many have tried to wipe the good from our history books. Read the Bible Jesus will Bless you more then i can.

The Lord's Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott

PS
I can only ask you to please look into Solar Energy, Solar Power, Solar Panels and Solar array on the internet under Images. To see and explore for your self
then you be the JURY.

More then 10 years ago the Internet became most of the World's Universities Learning Platform. A Modern Day Archimedes Resource Center.

The answer to question asked by "mbortman" and answered so quickly by "sun2energy" is not so easy.
The cost of wars in the Middle East and maybe other places is actually the cost of fossil fuel, at least in large part.
The cost of fossil fuel is not only in the form of $$$$, it is also in the form of human lives and wild life.
Take a look at Arlington National cemetery, that is in part cost of fossil fuel, now put a $$ amount on that.

Every coal plant that the USA tears down is bought by the third world and rebuild to continue to make dirty energy. All the USA is doing with our CO2 policies is feel good politics.

Renewable energy is big business they, like the fossil fuel industry, buy and pay for the politicans we then get to vote for.

The climate change business vs the fossil fuel business is nothing more than a struggle for political power by big business. We are just pawns in that struggle.

Don't get blinded by the fear mongers like Al Gore he cares nothing for you or the environment. He has got very rich off of selling fear.

Our problem in the USA is that we have allowed Washington to tax and redistribute income so long that the system of free enterprise can no longer work to solve our problems.

The truth is fossil fuel is here to stay until it runs out in 200 years. If the USA does not use it some one else will. By subsidising solar or renewable energy all we are doing in the USA is lowering our standard of living and sending our wealth to China.

@etcgreen,
The utilities don't levy feed in tarriffs on themselves, the government does it.
I am fully aware that I live in a Petroleum Economy. I would much rather live in a clean, sustainable economy that is not ruled by Petroterrorists and war mongers.
A further increase in atmospheric CO2 will not affect you maybe. Keep invested in Oil and Coal companies. You will make money for the rest of my lifetime. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, will wonder how YOU (not me) could do this to them. I will chose to invest in clean energy. I buy my electricity from Avista Utility's 'Buck-a-Block' program. My electricity is wind power by choice. I built my first solar thermal air heater in 1976. I worked at a gas station during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. The OPEC Cartel has been at war with the USA since 1973!

Tax credits and government subsidies in general are not in our best interest. Please stop asking the government to subsidize technologies that do not make economic sense. Feed-in tariffs to require public utilities to pay for electricity is, on the other hand, in our best interest.

The fossil fuel industry is the dominate source of the world economy - you continue to live in a Petroleum Economy - only now at a more humble level. Please learn about the world around you.

In the USA, wind, solar and geothermal electricty generation has increased over 100% in the last couple of years. In part because of the subsidies and Production Tax Credit. Coal plants are being closed or refurbished to burn natural gas. These are proof that the utlities can make money with renewable energy. I believe subsidies should be increased to home owners and small buinesses for purchasing renewable enegy equipment with a bonus incentive for energy efficiency upgrades. Big industry can bribe polititians. Home owners can vote them out of office. Call your legislators, tell them to stop subsiizing the fossil fuel industry and increase payments to home owners and small businesses that install sustainable, renewable energy improvements. The fossil fuel industry killed th world economy. The average home owner needs help to pay for energy.

The article is naive, but since Steve, the author is obviously very well informed, I will suggest he is taking this position for effect.

There are local grid kwh rates today in parts of the U.S. that easily justify solar and wind with no subsidies. And that is exactly where solar and wind need to flourish. Those areas where solar and wind do not make sense economically simply should not install solar and wind. Rather they should be looking at building a more extensive National Smart Grid to long haul power from those regions of the U.S. where solar and wind are a viable economic resource.

I find it amazing that so many people take the position that if we simply spend more $ on R&D that the cost of some technology will be reduced. Hey, solar tech since the 1970's has received literally $T's in R&D and the efficiency and cost per watt improvements have not been anywhere close to personal electronics models (personal computer or cell phone) and it is not likely to ever do so.

When coal and natural gas grid power begin to run out in 100-200 years, solar and wind technology will be mature and available. In the mean time, we should focus on a more immediate problem - petroleum. If you really want to help the environment stop driving gasoline powered vehicles and join the Migration.

http://etcgreen.com Article: U.S. Migration

ANONYMOUS
April 24, 2012

Mark: Coal plants are being replaced by Natural Gas, not wind and solar. Wind has had some success in a few (windy) States, but solar has accomplished nothing. At the same time China is burning more coal every month to generate electricity to make cheap solar panels they send to us. Silly.

New coal-generating electricity plants are now being built (worldwide) at the greatest pace since 1985. In the US we have had a net gain of 4 coal power plants in the last few years.

For those of you that see no progress just google 'coal plants shut down' and you will find dozens of articles about aged coal power plants being shut down and renewables coming on line to replace them. That's progress. I agree that we are having a hard time curbing the growth of demand but we are in the early stages of a technological revolution that has been accelerating and will continue accelerate every year. That is the benefit if the subsidies and incentives. Environmental regulations and NGO watchdogs are forcing coal out of the power business. The idea that we have a 100 year supply of natural gas is just another example of the fossil industry's willingness to throw another generation (our grand children) under the bus so they can harvest short-term profits. As gas supplies dwindle, prices will rise and the holy market will work in favor of the next best thing whatever it is.

I doubt that people in general will adopt voluntary energy efficiency, but laws phasing out inefficient technologies and incentives for investment in energy efficient buildings, homes, lighting, appliances, HVAC, and the transportation sector will move us in the right direction ( yes... I do mean electric cars and hydrogen fuels and all that 'it'll never happen' technology). If we aren't smart enough to solve this problem, both technologically, and socially, we would still be spinning vinyl records and listening to 8-track tapes in our cars! We can do this! We are doing this! What is missing, as I stated in post #24, is a consensus that it is both possible and the right thing to do. Getting the big money out of our politics is probably the best step in the right direction.

ANONYMOUS
April 24, 2012

TO: dimitar-mirchev-14630

Demand has increased 3X the amount of heavily subsidized wind and solar. Most projections I've seen suggest solar might be 3-4% of our electricity generation by 2020 - if subsidies continue. Given the amount of capital invested, I'd say that isn't progress. Everyone knows solar cannot be sustained without government subsidies.

I am too "old and ugly" to post a picture. Ask yourself this one
question-Why hasn't Detroit ever built a Diesel Automible?? "Big
Oil" and the Auto Industry have sold the American people a bill
of goods for over a hundred years. In 1957, I declared CONGRESS
"PUBLIC ENEMY NO. ONE"..For a very long time, I had a bumper sticker that read "Don't Re-elect Anyone". The Oil & Gas industry
is going to do anything and everything necessary to protect their
10 to 12 Trillion $ infrastructure. I have been involved in all
Renewable energy, especially Solar, since the mid '70s. Now there
is a Co. I think will CHANGE SOLAR dramatically as we know it.
No expensive furnace, no toxic chemicals, and, they have just
developed "BLACK SOLAR"--Patented with NREL a Solar Wafer that
has only.03% refectively. No Gov. loans,no grants and NO DEBT-
Minimal expense. PLEASE don't take my word for it. CHECK IT OUT
for yourself. The people involved in this co. have impeccable
credentials.The Name--NATCORE TECHNOLOGY-They have a website...

Non-hydroelectric renewable generation has increased in many states over the past decade

I believe we can call this 'a progress'.

Edit: I forgot to quote this from the EIA link:

A significant share of generation from biomass and solar photovoltaic resources occurs in the end-use industrial, residential, and commercial sectors and is not included in the utility-scale electric power data presented here.

We have no plan because we have two competing industries. One is the energy business which includes conventional and renewables and the second is the environmental.

The energy industry is driven by profit and environmental by fear. If the U.S. and Europe were to go all green then the cost of coal and oil would be so low that the of the developing world have no motive to use green energy and will thus resort to cheap coal and oil with a net increase in polution. So forcing the western world to use renewables through fear will have no total effect on green house gases. Congress knows this but they want the environmentalists votes so they pander to the voter by throwing then some crumbs and frustrate the rest of us.

This is from my phone sorry, but I have seen what it would take to get wis of coal, and it can be done with solar, wind, geo, fuel from ag wastes, hydro, low head hydro, co gen, conservation, and backed up with new clean nat. gas very low emission plants.
Cn

ANONYMOUS
April 23, 2012

It is very clear from these Comments that we actually have NO CLUE as to how to solve the need for clean, affordable energy. We only know how to pretend it is being solved.

Like many who have commented I see no progress in the last 10 years. Billions in public funds were spent to deploy wind, solar and some geothermal during the last decade. Now that these subsidies are being curtailed those efforts will disappear.

I gather that the real problem is, as PeterLynch has acknowledged, we DON'T HAVE A PLAN. Are we so enamored with taking sides (politically) that we can't stop and simply try to focus on the problem and look only at ways to solve it? I would like to know if wind, solar, geothermal and other ideas really can replace coal-generated electricity and at what cost/timetable. Why hasn't any single media source simply tried to apply math to every idea and provide some objective conclusions? Better yet, why hasn't the DOE done this?

If we ALL know two things are required 1) affordable electricity and 2) a reduction in CO2 (and other emissions) from the production of electricity, WHAT can achieve that? At what cost? And when? Why can't we provide an objective comparison to all the hyped solutions?

Sierra Club and dozens of other non-profit organizations spend millions sounding the alarm(s). They even suggest that wind and solar can replace coal-generated electricity, but no mention of cost or timetable. Democrats/environmentalists promote significant subsidies for 'renewables,' yet they never tell us how and when those subsidies will make a measurable difference.

Assuming we wanted to keep electricity affordable (US $.10 kWh or less) and we wanted to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 10 years, how would any of these concepts get us there? What would it cost and when would we see those measurable results?

Can't we stop arguing over favorites and/or blaming politics,and just do the math?

Most times I find that the simplest solution usually works the best so:

The energy mess is the result of NO PLAN period. Everyone in congress is to blame. Some keep quiet and do little - democrats and other talk loud and are clueless - Republicans.

What we need to do is ELIMINATE ALL energy subsidies and create
a level playing field.

Nuclear power is not even in the conversation without subsidies and unlimited insurance backup, paid for by you and me, although most of us are not aware of the size of this commitment. Reference the Price Anderson Act of 1957.

Energy production from renewables is greater than what nuclear power gives us. I am including geothermal sources.

Nuclear energy is operating in an area of hugh subsidies. If the true cost of nuclear energy was given it would cost $8,500
a kwh.

Craig

ANONYMOUS
April 23, 2012

jack-rutherford,

Your point about energy efficiency is valid. In a free market improvements in efficiency will come about as a natural result of higher energy costs. Consumers in a free market will demand more efficient products when energy costs increase, and producers will be forced to respond if they wish to remain profitable. Subsidies and price controls do the opposite.

Something like 65% of all US energy usage goes to electrical power production and most of the rest goes to transportation. Only a small fraction of that total comes from RE sources. Thus, even a tiny 1% annual improvement in efficiency of auto and aircraft engines, or a similar improvement in the efficiency of air-conditioners, refrigerators, lighting, etc. would have a much greater impact than attempts at subsidizing growth in solar or wind energy production.

Consumer demand forcing producers to market more energy efficient products won't cost taxpayers a single dime. And that's the way things should work.

The free market gave us the $300 laptop computer. Why don't people trust it to do something similar for RE technology?

The subsidy cliff has been approaching for years. I believe it will be a healthy event, it's just that, to be fair the subsidies for the utility power industry should also end.
There is no mention of energy efficiency in this article, for far too long we have been consuming clean energy inefficiently. EE is the most cost effective strategy to create a sustainable future. It's just that reduced demand scares both the renewable industry and the utility industry.
What we really need is a stable long term energy policy.

Politics will continue to dwarf technical and economic issues in importance until pols stop picking winners and losers with monopolies, mandates, subsidies and exemptions to environmental laws.

ANONYMOUS
April 20, 2012

It's unfortunate to read the many posts criticizing the Republican members of Congress for every perceived problem in the global renewable energy market. Such comments ignore the fact that US federal subsidies like the PTC are not a significant factor in the total global renewable energy market. It also ignores the fact that Democrats had total control of the US government from 2007 to 2009, and currently control two-thirds of the US government.

On a "Renewable Energy World" website, it would be nice to read posts focused on the technical and economic facts surrounding renewable energy rather than political diatribes.

Here is a link to an article where it is asked; 'why is there so much bashing of the electric vehicle?'

I think this question reflects accurately the same type of stupidity,ignorance and 'knuckle drag' sort of self inflicted intellectual suicide our country appears to be enamored of when discussing renewable energy and the fundamental changes that can move us as a species into the next century.

Neither political party has the countries best interest at heart and there are only a handful of anomalous individuals in the Democratic party with above room temperature IQ.

But it appears the party of Lincoln has decided that their 'ignorance promoted as a virtue' , embrace and promotion of an American model of neo feudalism and their love of fascism and tyranny constitutes good government and a bright future for us all.

God help us if we don't soon 'clean house' and remove the cancerous boils now killing the body politic.

Lack of advancement of renewable energy will be the least of our worries.

@ mark randall I get my facts from reading 5 wind power integration studies. The 3 commonly cited by AWEA from NY, Calif and Texas were all done by GE (a wind manufacturer). Here in Minnesota, the 2006 work was a collaboration of a wide variety of stake holders, utilities, power generators, transmission operators, government agencies, state and federal regulators, environmental groups, and public advocates. And yet they had the audacity to calculate the costs of adding 25% windpower by dumping the power into the much larger MISO market which means they were actually calulating the costs of integrating only 2% wind power. I went to another presentation by NREL who compared operating but not capital costs. You are obviously part of the fraud.

You probably have the basic idea on talking point (as in TV and radio pundit's) "discussions", Sun2Energy, but the thought behind what I see as the "group think" problem, especially with energy is structured self-deception, associated with the American "Jiminy Cricket Syndrome" which James Kunstler has found so useful and maybe what social networking is spreading throughout the world.

It is about perceiving things in ways that make us feel comfortable instead of facing tough issues like sustainable energy. I like Anaïs Nin quote: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

The technology to provide new and cleaner forms of power surround all of us and they have existed in real form or in equations and design for a very long time. Math,chemistry and physics can do amazing things when applied.

I'm currently involved in some bio energy development and once again find that a failure to compete with fossil fuels is not a lack of technical skills

The real impediment to doing any of these projects is more between the ears of those who are making decisions and allowing or disallowing implementation. That is finance,government,local opposition,lack of vision,lack of empathy etc etc. It can kill the best of ideas and usually does.

As I stated previously there are no solutions when any real solutions involve fundamental changes to the current paradigm.

All of our problems are the result of refusing to see that our current paradigm essentially "has no clothes".
Rather than all of us oohing and awing over the Emperors non existent new suit of clothes we ooh and aw about how 'just one more invention and all will be well'

This discussion of a report by Breakthrough Institute, the Brookings Institution and the World Resources Institute is little more than more 'group think', the same government phenomenon that: failed to predict the collapse of the USSR; put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq; and couldn't even predict the '08 financial collapse!

During my experience in the '70s and early '80s as a solar designer/builder, publisher and activist, we were pleading with our peers to bypass the 'benevolent' hand of government subsidies and directly deal with solar implementation with effective umbrella marketing strategies, our own public education campaigns, advocacy for higher oil pricing (now carbon taxes), and more importantly sell solar based on its inherent moral high road and its aesthetic potential.

So, after nearly 35 years of government tampering, can someone give me a reason why the solar industry still lacks sufficient fear of DOE that it willing to give its lunch box daily to the fossil fuel/nuclear (DOE) foxes who guard their solar hen-houses other than the industry has been programed and incentive to 'group think' along with all the other bureaucratic functions.

Educating our children can only come after we educate ourselves and elect those willing to be honest with the adult population. This is a proper and necessary role of the political class AND we must elect entropy-concerned politicians instead of Koch/Exxxon-Mobile (etc.) funded candidates who simply recycle the old 'group think issues' from previous administrations.

Renewable energy advocates must hold onto their (solar) lunchboxes from here on out lest they lose them again in the 2020s if not forever.

Hi,
Just take my WindSolars, they would produce so cheap electricity that exhaust from existing thermal Power Plants could be captured and cleaned while in contrast to other CCS, useful and marketable products would be manufactured as with simple electrolyse of CO2 we can get Electrographite and Oxygen.
If "Fractional Destilation" of air is done, all other Greenhouse gases like Methane could be captured and at least recycled or burned in the thermal PS, or liquified and used for vehicles or from it artificial fertilizers or plastics could be produced.
Since all gases from air could be captured, there could be Hydrogen capture, Halogens capture etc.
If my WindSolars (that could guaranteedly work 24/365 with enough redundant Solar concentrators of my design that would be cheap to manufacture and put into place) are paid for the service at least cost of their electricity production, and that cost can be as low as 3€ per MWh produced, then we get clean air and no Carbon emisions at slightly more expensive electricity produced by even coal burning thermal PSs.
My WindSolars would preserve land for agricultural use as there would be Greenhouses built in my Solar concentrator units, so we can continue use the coal and gas while lowering Carbon Emisions and producing useful and marketable products.
Since my Wind Power Stations of new design are able to use slow wind that is uneconomical for standard models to use at all, and such slow wind could be found practically anywhere or on at least 20 times more locations than 10m/sec wind required for most of other WPS models, total capacity of my WindSolars is potentialy big enough to replace all standard thermal and nuclear Power Plants by 100% clean and extremely cheap electricity.

But You know, Nobody from US would even think that someone of us pariahs from rest of the world can invent anything.
Even great Tesla was forgoten.

mike-h is getting his facts from Fox News again. The wind industry does not control integration studies. I sit on one of those committees as an invited guest and the work is a collaboration of a wide variety of stake holders, utilities, power generators, transmission operators, government agencies, state and federal regulators, environmental groups, and public advocates. And the study of renewables integration is not limited to this country. The studies have been conducted time and again all over the world by the smartest people I have ever encountered. The idea that the wind industry somehow has the power to affect the outcome is just a lie.

@ Anonymous 32 You can't make progress toward a solution or have a constructive energy policy or analysis or debate while the government is bought by special interests. The US government has allowed wind power interests to control wind integration studies and the gas industry to control environmnetal impact studies of fracking. It is the fault of the American people since they know they who they are voting for.

I think it's fair to question subsidies and how effective the various wind and solar developments are. Every time I look at these blogs I only find opposites. Surely, someone know the truth? Even our environment and efforts to produce clean energy is politicized by extremes.

I don't think this conversation ends up being productive. Like many commenting here, I work in the industry. I know we all play favorites and we all know we're not making much progress. Prize money for a solution? Perhaps, because I can't think of another way to get to the truth. Maybe we can somehow create an effective and objective panel of individuals that can make all of this more productive.

IMHO, despite the diatribe that usually accompanies these blogs, I actually do believe we all want to solve the problem. I haven't seen a solution yet. Maybe we should try to focus our attention in that direction.

A common thread is shared by the various bleats about oil & gas subsidies, the "true" cost of pollution, the ability of renewable energy to "save" the planet, and potentially catastrophic affects of climate change. None of these assertions can be measured or proved. How convenient.

Renewable energy should be sold as a means to reduce energy costs. Period. If it costs more than alternatives, then it should go into the dung heap of the "not-ready-for-prime-time".

Taxpayer help in research and development activities strikes me as reasonable but actual implementation (and associated risks) should lie with private industry. The ponderous government is simply incapable of choosing winners and losers, as we see time after time.

As to "subsidies", the ability to write-off expenses is common to all businesses. Anything beyond that should be stopped, no matter how much money is contributed to politicians in pursuit of special favors to a particular business.

Well I am happy to admit all my funding even though its 12+ million came from DIRT FARMER's wanting to invest in their future and for their operations as we also had a electrolyzer envelopment hence our ammonia output pilot.

We don't now nor will we need any subsidy support and our next build after successful demonstration of a commercial pilot build will be a full farm 2400 Mw and roughly 2000 tons of NH3, some of it will go into urea daily with no grid connection needed, so we aren't dependent on a low paying PPA that takes us 1-3 years to get at very low kwh rates.

If we kept the NH3 for energy storage we can store terawatts if someone needed that much as we just need to add aditional storage tanks which aren't that expensive overall for additional Mwh standby or baseline as needed.

These developments didn't just happen over night they are 30+ years of my lifes work its only over the past few years have they been coming to fruition.

'Instead of continuing to waste billions on clean-tech subsidies, how about we find a solution first?'

'If we simply posted a $1 billion reward (yes, prize money) to find a solution, we just might find it.'

These comments by Anonymous and many just like it are the real reason we have not made a significant dent in fossil fuel use and renewable energy development.

These comments reflect a deep seated naivety,ignorance and lack of vision displayed on a daily basis by most humans.

Until we finally come to grips with the fact that the entire infrastructure,lifestyle and overall expectations for what we call 'reality' were based and continue to be based on false assumptions there will be no real progress in finding that elusive 'solution'.

Colonel Drake with his oil well in 1859 and Thomas Edison with his Pearl Street power station in lower Manhattan in 1878 set the stage for our current problem of having painted ourselves into an 'energy corner'.

We as a group cannot even envision a new paradigm to the current non sustainable and destructive reality.

An entirely new means of energy production,use and distribution that, looks nothing like our current model, yet meets all the real NEEDS we have for comfort and sustenance and livability is the only real solution.

I honestly feel we will stumble and bumble along for a few more decades until all this nonsense we now call reality comes to bite us. By then it may be too late. Too many vested interests in the current reality to ever make real substantive changes. Just bandages for an arterial hemorrhage.

There is no single silver bullet solution to our energy needs.
Our energy desires are not the same as our energy NEEDS.

Work on the desire side of the equation and the rest will take care of itself.

BTW! Don't expect anything but more of the same to come from the so called representatives we 'vote' for.
And until we tackle our population problem all is lost anyway.

The obvious answer is to get rid of all monopolies and environmental exemptions. Mandates and subsidies should be used sparingly to keep clean industries alive for R&D.

Wind power has been implemented on a wasteful multi-billion dollar scale while biomass power has been dying. On the other hand, it has also been ridiculous to allow natural gas to wipe out all other industries by giving them an environmental exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I see the conventional energy and renewable energy sources from a different perspective. If you want to know the REAL story, follow the money. How many congressional leaders have stock in oil companies? How many congressional leaders have stock or some type of ownership in renewable energy companies? Watch the ebb and flow of these oil/energy companies; when large blocks of stock are bought and sold. Then you should see a pattern of where the taxpayers' money will go.

Anyone naive enough to think those currently in power are not somehow manipulating energy markets are woefully ignorant. These politicians arrive in their newly elected office with financial worth of a paltry few hundred thousand and leave office multimillionaires. They solve no problems despite all the rhetoric, campaign promises and general HOT AIR speeches. In fact if we could capture that 'HOT AIR' we could power this nation for the next century.

Get rid of regulations and allow the free market to work. AND get rid of ALL the politicians. Let's start over. Sooner or later the free sun and free wind will manifest itself in the form of affordable energy. Innovators will rise to the top without government subsidies which are nothing more than OPM (other peoples' money) so benevolantly bestowed by the policitians on their constiuents. WHY??? for re-election of course.

Also, when long range hybrids hit the street (100 miles electric plus backup total range 350 to 600 miles) watch out big
oil. And there will be an app for that, charging stations etc.
They are very close.

Right on Craig! I'm another veteran from the 70s. What is missing is consensus, although it already exists in numerous areas. We all agree that it is the right thing to do to educate our children, to stop polluting the air and water, and that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity... it is called our basic humanity. Unfortunately our own greed and self interest get in the way and somehow ending pollution impinges upon someone's freedom to pollute. So now we stand divided; political idealogues pointing fingers at one another while Rome burns. We have all created so much uncertainty that we can't focus more than a year ahead and make decisions that transcend us vs them. So the pendulum continues to swing from one extreme to the other; briefly passing over the middle ground on its way to the next extreme left or right. With any luck at all our children and grandchildren will be able to dampen the oscillations down to something resembling a consensus to treat the planet and each other with respect and dignity.. I like to think that we are kind of moving in that direction but I fear our willingness to accept killing each other to "protect our interests". Every kWh, btu and mpg generated from renewables is one that is not coming from fossil fuels. The old coal plants are in fact shutting down as their licenses expire. It feels really good to drive a car that gets 40 or 50mpg when gas is $4.19. It is working in spite of ourselves.

The bottom line is subsidy economics is not a sustainable business model for renewables or fossil fuel energy producers. Subsidy distort the market place and discourage innovation long term.

EV, wind and solar need a cost effective energy storage system to be truely effective. We all hate the utilities and fossil fuels but if we had a effective storage scheme that did not use the grid we would not care about the IOU's and EV would kill oil.

So this dicussion started with Steve's article on the renewable energy after subsidies. The real reason subsidies for renewable are going away is because government are not seeing a return on their investment. The reason they are not seeing the reTurn is because renewable industry is missing a key building block and that is a cost effective battery storage scheme.

What we should be doing is encourging our representative to invest is in storage innovation and once the storage issue is resolved renewable energy will trive without further government support.

Cliff to get to a pilot generally requires multiple funding rounds and they do a terrible thing called DUE DILIGENCE I know your aware but sometimes not all are aware of those facts.

funny how they don't want to throw their money away...AA you never mention any fund raising for the advanced development stage your at so it got me to wondering can you name any or show prototypes as I know we had, concept then simulated testing then scaled testing then a full scale then a pilot build...did you self fund? Patents?

I don't see the oil companies as my biggest issue and my development was engineered and took longer as I hadn't counted on any subsidies to be viable which we don't need. I see the biggest issue of those distorting the renewable message by less than honorable efforts.

Actually I see it as an opportunity that there isn't any subsidy as I don't have to fight for prime development land this way.

So the solution to the end of "Magic Money" is to continue the "Magic Money," not much surprise there. The congress (right & left) will continue to pay attention to campaign contributors between elections.

I like the bit about "innovation" which is actually the last thing the dispensers of "Magic Money" really want to see. Disruptions like that make it harder to predict future efforts to shovel money out of the Treasury to campaign contributors.

"The Golden Thread" subtitled "2500 Years of Solar Architecture & Power" demonstrates just how unrelated this report is to the reality. There is a chapter, towards the end of the book, about SWH in California just before WW2. It's worth reading.

As for "Innovation" see http://www.FuturaSolar.com which features a multiple solar benefit solar roofing system for low profile commercial buildings. Daylighting, solar thermal air, PV and solar thermal water, all in one useful package, very close to the consumer.

2. "Washington and Oregon are gearing up to export massive amounts of coal to China" Really please advise us how two states, Washington and Oregon, with ZERO coals reserves are gearing up to export a resource they do not have ??

http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_production_state_rank.pdf

3. Beware of GOOGLE - if you google your work - you will also find a link that implies you have quite a record with the State of Texas Securities authorities. I would address that, if I were you.

As far as credibility - you have lost all you may have had. Stop playing with coal and wake up.

Well here we are again. I have been in the game as far as following what has been happening since 1973 when I first went to a workshop and built solar panels (air) from recycled materials. There has been some comments that hit the nail on the head, insecurity-no investment. A wonderful game played by the status quo. The board rooms of big oil are again having a great time. Raise the price of gasoline by 25% practically overnight, and claim fear as the cause. This is just as funny as back in '73 when they claimed it was the embargo. But, infared photos of the tankers stacked up on the east coast showed that all that was a fabrication. Gas went up 300%. So why am I focusing on big oil, you guessed it. They are the sole problem. They will give it to us when they have control.

We can be lemmings or......
Actually, President Obama has the cajones the try and cut big oil subsidies by introducing legislation. But, we saw how for that got. It was a good try to see if he could get some traction. A grass roots approach can work, we need a ground swell
of activity. Yes, it's all political. Why do 90% of people say
they support renewables.

We created a new country with less numbers.
Leadership, political will, and a good infrastructure. Seems all to be there. Bright minds are involved in this endevour.

@AlexWhite Yes the wind power industry has published deceptive integration studies misrepresenting the cost and benefits.

But giving monopolies to US utilities has discouraged risk investment in all new techs (including wind and solar) because they could block or steal any new power-related technology developed. The government financed systems of Europe and China also don't invest in new techs, they copy.

The Bush/Cheney giving of exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act to natural gas in shale has also killed investment in alternatives.

And Andrew (aka Anonymous #11) appears to be preying on the desperation by pretending to have solutions and trying to get investors one-on-one so he can't be discredited publicly.

Cliff, if you have any evidence that our $500 billion investment in wind and solar schemes has accomplished anything, provide it. It is stupid for us to continue to pretend these are "alternatives," when they are simply over-priced, unreliable supplements.

This wind/solar delusion has prevented us from making real progress - with solutions.

I haven't read the 65-page report, but if this synopsis is accurate, I am not impressed.

The authors call for "a comprehensive new energy approach — one that aims to lower costs of energy with clear requirements and predictable policy." This stance seems to ignore the fact that the price of natural gas is artificially low because they are able to externalize their costs onto the environment, the taxpayer, and the public in general. This is equivalent to demanding a legitimate manufacturer drop prices to match the cheap knockoff. The absurdity of the authors demands is particularly evident when comparing the record profits of the fossil-fuel sector and the turmoil in renewable sector. One is a cartel-driven and recklessly exploiting the planet's one-time gift of fossil resources. The other is a competitive mix where only the fittest are surviving. The wise use of both fossil and renewable resources does not necessarily equate to lowering their costs.

The authors suggest policy reforms that are mutually inconsistent. First they suggest setting "policies that decline as technologies improve in price and performance." Then they cry for a process that "is clear, transparent and predictable for many years down the road." What? Predictable means you establish policy that is sufficiently enduring that technology and project developers can see an ultimate path to economic success. The idea that incentives ratchet back with technology improvements is a formula that will discourage progress.

My sense is the report's authors have spent too much time in think tanks and not enough in manufacturing or actually working in the renewable energy sector. I hope there is more to the full report.

"Instead of continuing to waste billions on clean-tech subsidies, how about we find a solution first?"

Yet you dont find any need to discontinue to waste billions on NON-clean-tech subsidies.

ANONYMOUS
April 19, 2012

If the data is correct, the US government (taxpayers) have invested more than $100 billion in the last few years on wind and solar schemes. This may have leveraged about $500 billion in total investment. It's fair to ask what we have to show for it?

Nothing.

Numerous studies have confirmed the fact that we haven't reduced CO2 at all. After subsidies run out, as your analysis shows, there will be no additional deployment.

Why are we pretending that wind and solar make sense? This false hope prevents us from seeking a real solution.

To further prove this reality, Washington and Oregon are gearing up to export massive amounts of coal to China, where it will be used to generate electricity and to make wind turbines and solar panels... then ship them back to us. Can't you see the lunacy?

Instead of continuing to waste billions on clean-tech subsidies, how about we find a solution first? DOE does not have a Plan - nobody does. If we simply posted a $1 billion reward (yes, prize money) to find a solution, we just might find it. Dr. Chu's repeated assertion that "there is no silver bullet" has no foundation. We should find out.

Wind and solar will never be a significant part of our electricity generation mix. They are simply unreliable and expensive "supplements."

The real problem is the refusal of the GOP to acknowledge the threat to our future well-being of climate change. We can get rid of all subsidies and renewable energy will thrive if we start to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for future damages with a steadily progressive carbon fee (and dividend).

I disagree with Sun2Energy that renewables wouldn't be profitable on their own if the true cost of the pollution caused by traditional power sources were included in their cost. I agree that taking their direct subsidies away wouldn't be enough, but even if you ignore the economic value of the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change, if companies stopped being allowed to externalize their costs.

A study by the European Respiratory Journal estimates that pollution causes 3% of deaths in the US (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/412202), and one Cornell study estimates that pollution causes an astonishing 40% of deaths worldwide (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813162438.htm). In terms of wrongful deaths lawsuits (which cost about $4 million/death on average), that's a pretty big chunk of change (around 240 billion dollars).

We spent about 46 billion on coal generation of electricity in 2009 (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec3_11.pdf), and assuming coal is responsible for one fifth of these deaths, this would basically double its cost, making wind, geothermal, and micro-hydro cheaper than it in many cases. And remember, this is just counting one type of externalized cost from fossil fuels, wrongful deaths due to emissions.

I wouldn't for advocate a lawsuit based energy policy, and I think it is a good idea to subsidize new energy technology like photovoltaics and advanced biofuels even if they couldn't ready to compete with traditional power sources in an externality free environment. But I think its false to say renewable would fail entirely without subsidies if the playing field were entirely levelized.

Renewables have subsidies the are UNCERTAIN and at best time limited (except for German FIT's which are 20 years and are NOT technically subsidies) - therefore the only certainty out of this situation is NO INVESTORS. Investors loath uncertainty and this is the case with renewables.

Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized and ALL of their subsidies have been in place for decades and are, in fact, IN the tax code, therefore NO uncertainty and plenty of investors.

The biggest obstacle to R&D are the electricity monopolies that dominate virtually all regulated states (ie the utilities) and probably most deregulated states (ie the utility spinoffs who got sweet heart deals including excessive stranded costs). Investors will be unwilling to spend money developing new technologies as long as these monopolies are allowed the market power to block (or take) the commercialization of these technologies whenever they want.

We are at the "Valley of Death" with our wind turbine technology as well. We have had past investment funding rounds to even build a full scale prototype to gather data and it remained for almost 3 years so we know it can withstand the weather.

The wind turbine runs at a projected 2 cents per kwh and needs no help to be viable as it is on its own. The system was co-developed with an internally designed 15k 700 bar alkaline hydrogen electrolyzer which we are at an estimated generation of $3 kg.

This doesn't solve the problem of building the pilot to prove the entire system via independent review as the only shot we have is this current ARPA-E round or continue private investment which takes considerable time to find the right investors since the loan program is gone and we wasn't ready for it when it was active.

If I am right the energy source and the carrier/fuel issue is but a build out away.

How much support does the government give to the fossil fuel and and nuclear industries? If those were to end and the real costs for pollution caused by those industries were included in the cost of energy, would renewables already be profitable?

Great job of framing the issue. It has been my point for sometime that we need to focus in our industry on transition from a subsidy model to a sustainable business model.

The only way to grow our industry and provide clean energy we all need and want is to have a predictable income stream not the government subsidy economic model.

The government money is best spent on R&D. Tax policy should be adjust to accommodate the "valley of death" between R&D and production of new technologies. Like you say both political parties can support R&D like your article proposes.

The people of the world will have to have business to produce and install this technologies. These business will need capital to grow so as to produce the quantity of scale to replace oil and only profits will produce the capital needed for this growth.

Everybody that is concerned about a thriving renewable industry to support reversing or slowing climate change should support the conclusions of your article.